Author Topic: Rule 44: clarifying language needed on short all-ins totalling a full min raise?  (Read 3718 times)

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Another feature or RRoP is the glossary.  It helps us understand the rules that use these terms within the document.  Here is a subset that pertains to the conversation in this thread:

--- From RRoP version 11 ---


GLOSSARY

ACTION: A fold, check, call, bet, or raise. For certain situations, doing something formally connected with the game that conveys information about your hand may also be considered as having taken action. Examples would be showing your cards at the end of the hand, or indicating the number of cards you are taking at draw.

ALL-IN: When you have put all of your playable money and chips into the pot during the course of a hand, you are said to be all-in.

BET: (1) The act of making  a wager before anyone else on a betting round. (2)The chips used by a player to bet, call, or raise.

CHECK: To waive the right to initiate the betting in a round, but to retain the right to act if another player initiates the betting.

CHECK-RAISE: To waive the right to bet until a bet has been made by an opponent, and then to increase the bet by at least an equal amount when it is your turn to act.

FOLD: To throw a hand away and relinquish all interest in a pot.

RAISE: To increase the amount of a previous wager. This increase must meet certain specifications, depending on the game, to reopen the betting and count toward a limit on the number of raises allowed.

RERAISE: To raise someone’s raise.

WAGER: (1) To bet or raise. (2) The chips used for betting or raising.


--- End RRoP ---

So, using these terms and meanings, it is easy to see how an all-in can be:
- a wager, either a bet or raise
- a raise that increases the amount of a previous wager
- a raise, that in some cases (not all), meets the specifications required to reopen the betting 

RRoP and many others distinguish, very succinctly, these raises as either short or full.  Of course, some all-in bets are not raises at all.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2016, 07:12:50 AM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Stef0111,

 I've been lobbying for a 100% rule for a long time. With support from others, maybe we can convince our rulemakers to consider using a percentage...we already use it for limit.

                                                            No Limit
 It is possible for an all-in player, with less than the required amount (if he were not all-in), to re-open the betting to a player who has already acted. If the all-in amount equals at least 100% of the largest bet or raise on the current betting round.

  Or

 When facing a short wager (action only) from an all-in player, a full raise must be made in order to re-open the betting. The exception is when an all-in players bet equals at least 100% of the largest bet or largest raise of the current betting round.

 BillM,

 I was typing when you posted: Note that the All-in is not defined as a raise in the RRoP Glossary. What do you think?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 06:44:09 AM by Nick C »

Max D

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
I like the idea of using wager to encompass bet and raise (per RRoP definition), but I am afraid that a year from now we would then have the discussion on "are they taking raise, bet?"  and would start a new set of discussion on how we should use raise or bet...
Max D

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Max,
 
 That's pretty interesting because that is one of the issues I have with the current rule. The fact that a short all-in wager is much different from a short all-in raise. In order to raise, there must first be a bet! That's what separates our rule from Robert's Rules.

 I remember being told that an all-in should not be recognized as a raise, if it is short. It was to be considered "action only." That's another issue that I'd rather not discuss right now. One pain in the butt topic at a time!  ;D

Max D

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
I have to say that I have not seen a thread like this in a long time, but I think that healthy discussion is great, maybe we can have an agreement by the next Vegas meeting in a year...
Max D

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Note that the All-in is not defined as a raise in the RRoP Glossary.

True, because not all-in's are raises.

SB $10 and BB $20.  UTG can be:

- all-in for $40 or more ----> full raise.
- all-in for $21 thru $39 ---> short all-in.  This is still a raise according to RRoP and the rest of the world. But it is short of a full raise.
- all-in for $20 -------------> call.
- all-in for $1 thru $19 ----> all-in for less.  It is less than a call.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2016, 02:17:59 PM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Bill,

 All-in wagers are not raises unless they are 100% of the largest bet or largest raise the all-in player is facing. I don't agree with your wording on a couple of your examples.

 I may have overlooked something but I am unable to see any reference of an all-in wager being a raise unless it is in limit poker where the 50% rule is used.

 I once wrote the definition of a raise from Websters Dictionary when we had a similar discussion a few years ago. An increase in any amount would qualify, but not in no limit poker.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
All-in wagers are not raises unless they are 100% of the largest bet or largest raise the all-in player is facing. I don't agree with your wording on a couple of your examples.

Nick, I fully realize that you disagree with me and Bob Ciaffone.  But, we will have to agree to disagree.  Mr. Ciaffone doesn't get it wrong very often, as can be seen when one reads the various versions of RRoP over the years.  He didn't get it wrong here either.  He wouldn't have omitted the exception that you try to make if it existed.  Please accept the written evidence from one of the leading authorities.

As RRoP says in regard to the raise (an increase to the previous wager) - This increase must meet certain specifications, depending on the game, to reopen the betting and count toward a limit on the number of raises allowed.  This doesn't support your notion that a short all-in is not a raise.  To the contrary, it says that the short all-in raise might not make a full raise (in no-limit and pot limit) or a 50% raise (in limit), which is required to reopen the betting.  In all cases, if it (the short all-in) is an increase over the previous wager IT IS A RAISE!
« Last Edit: June 23, 2016, 06:27:02 PM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Bill I don't want to argue with you. A short all-in does not qualify as a raise that would re-open the betting unless it is 100% of the original bet. I think we are in agreement that a slight change in the current rule would be better than what we (the TDA) are currently using. You are correct about Mr Ciaffone, so why not use his rule from Robert's Rules, instead of ours?

 We are heading in the right direction, let's see if we can make the rule easier for everyone to understand. Keep coming with your suggestions and I'll quit repeating myself over and over. We keep going like this and Mike will shut this thread down, too!

 The rule needs something, let's get something ready for the 2017 Summit. The subject is: clarifying language needed on short all-ins totalling a full raise. We need to change the language. I've made my suggestions, so I'll sit back for a while and see what else some others might come up with.

Thanks for listening.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Here is an example of on how the 2017 Illustration might be changed to enhance clarification on the short all-ins issue:


Rule 44: Reopening the Bet

Example 1

This example demonstrates how multiple all-in bets, each to small to be considered a full raise over the most recent bet, can result in a full sized raise over an earlier bet.
   
Initial Action

NLHE with the blinds at 50-100.  The following action occurs post flop:

Alice — opens with a min-bet of 100 and has chips behind
Bob — goes all-in for a total of 125
Charlie — calls the 125 and has chips behind
David — goes all-in for a total of 200
Erin -- calls 200 and has chips behind

Action Returns

When action returns to Alice, she is facing the 200 wager.  Since her opening bet was 100, she is now facing a full raise of an additional 100.  Therefore, betting is reopened for Alice who can now fold, call, or raise.

Note, Bob’s raise was not a full raise over Alice’s bet.  His raise to 125 only increased the current wager by 25.  However, David’s raise to 200 is a full raise to Alice, but is not a full raise to either Bob or Charlie.  Therefore, betting is reopened to Alice by virtue of David’s short all-in raise, the second such short all-in in this series.  Notice, that when we are considering reopening the bet to Alice, there is no requirement for David’s raise to be a considered a full raise to any of the other players in the hand. 

The following shows two additional options on how action might continue from this point.

  • Continuing the Action with Alice Calling

    If Alice chooses to call the 200 by putting another 100 into the pot:

    Charlie is now facing the 200 bet which is only a 75 raise over his previous 125 calling wager.  Therefore, betting is not reopened to Charlie and he cannot raise.  Charlie can either fold or call the 200 by putting another 75 into the pot.

  • Continuation with Alice Raising

    If Alice raises all-in for an additional 150:

    Charlie is now facing a wager of 250, which is a full raise of 125 over his previous wager.  Therefore, betting is reopened to Charlie who can fold, call, or raise.  If Charlie decides to fold or call, betting would not be reopened to Erin, who then must either fold or call.
Summary

When a player, who has previously acted, is facing a full raise, betting is reopened and they may fold, call, or raise.  Multiple all-in wagers, each to small to qualify as a full raise over the preceding bet, can result in a full raise over an earlier bet.

None of the above players made a full raise to the wager they were facing. 
  • After Alice's 100 bet, the minimum full raise would be an additional 100, for a minimum total bet of 200.
  • Bob's all-in raise to 125 is only a 25 raise.  It failed to make a full raise of 100 for a total bet of 200.
  • Charlie only called the 125.  However, had he wanted to raise, it would need to be at least 100 on top of the 125.
  • David's all-in raise to 200 was only a raise of 75. Had he made a full 100 raise, the bet would have been at least 225.  However, as shown, it does result in a full raise of 100 back to Alice.  Bob's 25 raise and David's 75 raise has resulted in the 100 raise to Alice.
  • Erin only called the 200.  However, had she wanted to raise, it would need to be at least 100 more, for a bet totaling at least 300.


Regards,
B~
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 02:11:50 PM by BillM16 »

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
Looks good, but... (and you KNEW there'd be a 'but'.)


I'd add a line stating that if Charlie calls, Erin's options are only call or fold.

I'd also like to indicate at each step, if a raise is an option what a minimum raise would be. That tends to add to the confusion.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Bill,

 If I may, this is where we disagree, or where I believe we need clarification. I'll copy your post and highlight my suggestions in red.

Here goes:

Rule 44: Reopening the Bet

Example 1

This example demonstrates how multiple all-in bets, each to small to be considered a full raise over the most recent bet, can result in a full sized raise over an earlier bet.
   
Initial Action

NLHE with the blinds at 50-100.  The following action occurs post flop:

Alice ó opens with a min-bet of 100 and has chips behind
Bob ó goes all-in for a total of 125
Charlie ó calls the 125 and has chips behind (this is where I want you to state the required amount for a full raise if Charlie were to raise)
David ó goes all-in for a total of 200 (the one and only player that raised Alice's bet 100%)
Erin -- calls 200 and has chips behind

Action Returns

When action returns to Alice, she is facing the 200 wager.  Since her opening bet was 100, she is now facing a full raise of an additional 100.  Therefore, betting is reopened for Alice who can now fold, call, or raise. (This is poker 101, but thank you for the explanation.)

Note, Bobís raise was not a full raise over Aliceís bet.  His raise (it's not a raise...it's a short all-in wager) to 125 only increased the current wager by 25.  However, Davidís raise to 200 is a full raise to Alice, but is not a full raise to either Bob or Charlie.  Therefore, betting is reopened to Alice by virtue of Davidís short all-in raise, the second such short all-in in this series.  Notice, that when we are considering reopening the bet to Alice, there is no requirement for Davidís raise to be a considered a full raise to any of the other players in the hand. 

The following shows two additional options on how action might continue from this point.

Continuing the Action with Alice Calling

If Alice chooses to call the 200 by putting another 100 into the pot:

Charlie is now facing the 200 bet which is only a 75 raise over his previous 125 calling wager.  Therefore, betting is not reopened to Charlie and he cannot raise.  Charlie can either fold or call the 200 by putting another 75 into the pot.

Continuation with Alice Raising

If Alice raises all-in for an additional 150:

Charlie is now facing a wager of 250, which is a full raise of 125 over his previous wager.  Therefore, betting is reopened to Charlie who can fold, call, or raise.

Summary

When a player, who has previously acted, is facing a full raise, betting is reopened and they may fold, call, or raise.  Multiple all-in wagers, each to small to qualify as a full raise over the preceding bet, can result in a full raise over an earlier bet. (this multiple part is meaningless, lets put Bob all-in for 200...his single bet that doubled Alice's opening bet is what re-opens the betting, it has nothing to do with any combination or multiple all-in's from others. Your examples always are explained with an increase in all-in's...all-in for 14...all-in for 16...all-in for 19...if someone does not go all-in for at least 100% the betting is not re-opened. Period!)

In your example above, we have four possible situations that Charlie would face following Bob's all-in of 125.
       a) Charlie may fold.
       b) Charlie may call 125
       c) Charlie may raise if he has enough which is a minimum of 100 more for a total of 225.
       d) Charlie may go all-in for less than the required amount of 225. However, if his all-in wager totals 200 to 224, it will still re-open the betting to Alice because it is at least 100% of her opening bet!

 That's it...if your still confused, or you think I've miss-stated something, I'd like to hear about it. Confusion stems from calling a short all-in a full raise when it is not. Alice bets 100, Bob all-in for 125, Charlie all-in for 201. Not really the required amount, UNLESS HE IS ALL_IN!!!!!
« Last Edit: June 25, 2016, 06:30:24 PM by Nick C »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Nick, this will be the last time that I try to explain to you where you are wrong. 

The whole point of the rule that RRoP makes and the whole point of this thread is how multiple short all-ins result in a full raise.  You fail to comprehend that for two reasons:

1) you refuse to see Bob's increase of 25 as a raise - even though RRoP clearly says any increase is a raise
2) you say David's the one and only player that raised Alice's bet 100%

Obviously, there is nothing more that can be said to help you past your first mistake.  Your second mistake is quite simple and you should be able to overcome it.  If Bob didn't raise all-in - lets say he folded - then lets say Charlie calls Alice - then David goes all-in for a total of 200.  YOU ARE RIGHT! David's bet resulted in a full raise to Alice!  Just like it did in my scenario!  Nobody is disagreeing with you here.  The second mistake that you are having is merely this - The whole point is it ALSO OCCURS with short all-ins.  If David's all-in bet happens without Bob's all-in then there isn't multiple short all-ins to talk about.  In fact, there isn't even a single SHORT all-in to talk about.

I'm sorry that you cannot grasp these very simple points.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 05:36:04 AM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Bill,

 I'm sorry you don't address the fact that whenever an intervening all-in wager is made, that the proper full raise to the next player with enough chips, wishing to raise must increase the bet by the size of the biggest bet he is facing.

 In our simple example:
Alice bets 100, Bob goes all-in for 125, Charlie must raise to 225 minimum, UNLESS HE IS ALL-IN. That's it.

You say I don't understand but was I wrong on any examples?

 Sorry, it's not that I don't understand your simple explanation...the fact remains, it's not worded correctly.
 I'm getting sick of reading this myself...I'm done!...for now. ;D
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 07:35:20 AM by Nick C »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Looks good, but... (and you KNEW there'd be a 'but'.)


I'd add a line stating that if Charlie calls, Erin's options are only call or fold.

I'd also like to indicate at each step, if a raise is an option what a minimum raise would be. That tends to add to the confusion.

Dave, I've edited the above example to include Erin's options if Charlie calls.  I didn't include the changes to the minimum raise amounts along the way, for the very reason you pointed out - it would only add to the confusion.  However, I did add this information into the summary.  Thanks for the suggestions.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 09:52:19 AM by BillM16 »